falloutfanonfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Potential Quests
What is the Wiki's position on the Potential Quests that I wrote up under Eastland. Good idea? Not allowed? It may be a good way for people to express creativity instead of focusing on 'badass' factions and it may get people in the mind of creating "human" stories and things that other players can play off of in their own write-ups. ~LD~ 17:09, October 2, 2011 (UTC) It seems to be presenting things in Game Mechanics terms. I suggest weaving such plot threads into the history of the area, kind of like the potential van Eck coup in Midessa. Otherwise I think it's a fine idea to put RP fodder into the articles. Ok. Where would I read about the prohibition on Game Mechanics terms and the limits of that? Is that an official policy decision? I like separating out the storylines for easy searchability/readability, but to conform with policy, then going forward, I can refrain from mentioning: "this is a 30 speech check". Instead, I could say, "this is an easy speech check", for example). The solution I think you are advocating is to omit discussion of the speech check outright...I'd rather not do that, but if it's official policy I can hold off on doing that until there is a discussion about policy. ~LD~ 18:27, October 2, 2011 (UTC) Hey LD, when adding a new part to the forum, go to Templates at the right, and type rpt in the box at the top of the black box that pops up. Type four tildes in the first box, and nothing in the second. Then type away. The rule as written is Articles should not directly reference game mechanics outside of appropriate infoboxes. In general it's about avoiding phrasing things as you might see them in a game guide. It's okay for Bob to be a con-man with some safe-cracking experience; just don't write "Bob was trained in Speech and Lockpick." A laundry list of quests would be gamey, just weave them in to the greater story as I said before. ~LD~ 22:05, October 2, 2011 (UTC) Ok. Thank you for citing the rule about no references to "speech, lockpick, etc." I can follow that going forward. I don't think it's a good rule and I argue that there is value in citing the specific checks-especially for people who play Fallout PnP; but it is currently the rule and I am new; you have contributed far more. Thank you again for the clarification. That being said, since there does not appear to be a prohibition against it on the Rules page, I'll (for now) continue separating out the Quests sections if I do any more. I see some value in separating out quests and quest ideas to encourage content creation since quests contain snippets that people could potentially be added to others' pages without affecting cities' overall content. Yes, separating them out potentially makes the article feel a bit more gamey (in the sense of hooks like in Eberron or Forgotten Realms), but it also makes the article much easier to read and use. What is the audience here? The main reason I checked this wiki in the past was for insipration to use for PnP gaming. If gaming isn't the audience, then I apologize and I'll re-think what I'm doing. I can't guarantee that I'll contribute much more if gaming isn't the audience, but it wouldn't be a huge loss to you fellows--I only wrote a few articles :) and I'll wish you luck going forward since parts of your Wiki are interesting. Quick clarification, you can cite specific mechanics in the infobox. If you write a character article, you can stat it out with all the perks, traits, skills, etc. Just keep that stuff in the infobox and you'll be fine. Some of my character articles have infoboxes if you need to see what those look like. Keep in mind this rule when filling those out: Games mechanics infoboxes shall not be arbitrarily assigned numbers. The use of a character generator such as the one at Vault106.com or some other equivalent tool shall be used for accuracy. Granted, the Vault106 creator is no longer appropriate as it is for Fallout 3 and we're using the New Vegas version which I think they're still working on. You can find spreadsheets online to help out with that. I don't know if there's an intended audience. I took everyone here for some combination of role-player (PnP or Freeform), fan-fic author, or perhaps even game content creator. Thank you. Hm. That explanation of the rule seems to indicate that the rule existed to prevent people creating unbalanced characters and then claiming that "my character has XX power, so he killed your character." It doesn't seem like the spirit of the rule is to prevent the creation of quests. It also seems that the game mechanics information not being arbitrarily assigned numbers rule relates to characters rather than %s for a mission or a quest to be achieved. Regarding the intended audience answer, it seems like that might be an important (or at least useful) question for the site's vision. If the site is geared towards fan-fiction, then I can see why precise statistics for a quest would be disfavored and why it would be better to incorporate the quests into the entry's main text than setting the quests out. If the site is geared toward game content creation or roleplaying, then it would make sense for the entries to look like the Fallout Wiki's pages, with quests, etc. A Roleplaying/Game Content site would also likely be more static, whereas a Fanfiction one might be more dynamic- with plotlines and stories as people's factions grow and evolve as the Wiki's time-date presses ahead. I suppose the site can do all things, but it is possible that the different styles could potentially create a muddled vision; it's still an interesting question. I noticed you brought back some of the old fanfiction stories :) Seq00 wrote: " Oh, and that 'Quests' sub-title you have in most of your articles is a bit absurd; you write like they do at The Vault, while we here at TL strive for something more realistic. For example, (I also pointed this out on that Radiation Junction page) without using game mechanics.--Seqeu0 14:38, October 10, 2011 (UTC) " 1. I do appreciate that you didn't just revert my edits. 2. When you state that you "strive for something more realistic" I realize that the rules state no game mechanics except in the info box; however, my discussion with OP above revealed that the site's audience is a "combination of role-player (PnP or Freeform), fan-fic author, or perhaps even game content creator." These quests, as presented with suggested statistics are useful to all of those audiences except fan-fic authors. In fact, the suggested statistics are more useful than fluff words. 3. My "game content" data is confined to the Quests subsection of each article I create. I could put the Quests section in a spoiler if you prefer. 4. "Quests" could be a good way to encourage people on the site to add to others' articles. "Quest" edits may be less controversial than changes to the history of a location, for example. "Quests" provide a good opportunity for collaboration because they are modular--like OP's Bird Man Races article provided a good opportunity for cooperation. 5. It appears that the main reason for the restriction on Game Mechanics is to prevent people creating characters that can attack other characters, powergaming, etc. The way I present it, no character has a set statistic-- I present things as if a GM was leading a game in the world and the GM's players had to overcome a challenge. 6. The Quests really appear to help sketch out a city--I can much more easily see inter-relationships and I can more easily invent needed concepts by using the Quests to tie things together. 7. Most people interested in Fallout are interested in the games, whether they be the video games or the PnP. Therefore, their fanfiction and contributions to the wiki will be heavily inspired by what the Vault has and what they've seen in the game. I would expect that most people who come here would indeed expect pages to look something like the Vault's pages. The Vault's pages put a big emphasis on Quests. And the game itself revolves around quests. I like the idea of spoiler tagging it. Mind copy/pasting this to the rules discussion? We might replace the relevant rule with something along these lines.--OvaltinePatrol 01:05, October 11, 2011 (UTC)